Tag: Target firms


The Cost of Supermajority Target Shareholder Approval

Audra Boone is a senior financial economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis. This post is based on an article authored by Dr. Boone, Brian Broughman, Associate Dean for Research and Professor of Law at Indiana University, and Antonio Macias, Assistant Professor of Finance at Baylor University. The views expressed in the post are those of Dr. Boone and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commissioners, or the Staff. This post is part of the Delaware law series; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Acquisitions via a tender offer can be significantly faster than a traditional merger, but this benefit is only available if the bidder can conduct a short-form merger following the tender, which avoids the need for a proxy statement filing and formal shareholder vote. Until recently this structure was only available if the bidder could convince a supermajority (90%) of shareholders to participate in the tender offer. In August 2013, however, Delaware’s legislature passed a new code provision, section 251(h) of the Delaware General Corporation Law (the DGCL), that allows bidders of targets incorporated in Delaware to conduct a short-form merger after achieving only 50% ownership as opposed to 90% that is required in almost all other states. We use this legal change to investigate how the required level of shareholder support affects acquisition outcomes.

READ MORE »

SEC Guidance on Unbundling in M&A Context

Nicholas O’Keefe is a partner in the Corporate Department at Kaye Scholer LLP. This post is based on a Kaye Scholer memorandum authored by Mr. O’Keefe. The complete publication, including Annex, is available here. Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance about bundling includes Bundling and Entrenchment by Lucian Bebchuk and Ehud Kamar (discussed on the Forum here).

On October 27, 2015, the SEC issued new Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (the 2015 C&DIs) regarding unbundling of votes in the M&A context. The 2015 C&DIs address the circumstances under which either a target or an acquiror in an M&A transaction must present unbundled shareholder proposals in its proxy statement relating to provisions in the organizational documents of the public company that results from the deal. The 2015 C&DIs replace SEC guidance given in the September 2004 Interim Supplement to Publicly Available Telephone Interpretations (the 2004 Guidance). According to public statements of the SEC, and contrary to perceptions created by the news media, [1] the 2015 C&DIs represent a slight change from, and clarification to, the 2004 Guidance. The following is a brief overview of the unbundling rules, a summary of key differences between the 2015 C&DIs and the 2004 Guidance, and some observations about the practical implications of the changes.

READ MORE »

SEC’s “Unbundling Rule” Interpretation

Philip E. Richter is partner and co-head of the Mergers and Acquisitions Practice and Gail Weinstein is of counsel at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP. The following post is based on a Fried Frank publication.  Related research from the Program on Corporate Governance includes Bundling and Entrenchment by Lucian Bebchuk and Ehud Kamar (discussed on the Forum here).

The SEC has issued two new compliance and disclosure interpretations on the so-called “Unbundling Rule.” The SEC appears to have been motivated to issue the CDIs as part of the political reaction against, and desire to deter, inversion transactions.

The CDIs relate to proposed M&A transactions in which an acquiror would be issuing its equity securities to the target stockholders and the transaction agreement requires the acquiror to make material changes to its organizational documents (such as corporate governance changes). The SEC staff has established a new requirement for separate, precatory (i.e., non-binding) target stockholder votes on material changes to the acquiror’s organizational documents (“unbundled” from the target vote on the transaction itself)—which is designed to heighten the visibility to target stockholders of proposed acquiror corporate governance changes.

READ MORE »

Employee Rights and Acquisitions

Anzhela Knyazeva is a Financial Economist at the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission. This post is based on an article authored by Dr. Knyazeva, Diana Knyazeva, Financial Economist at the Securities and Exchange Commission; and Kose John, Professor in Banking and Finance at New York University. The views expressed in this post are those of Dr. Knyazeva and do not necessarily reflect those of the Securities and Exchange Commission or its Staff.

 

In our paper, Employee Rights and Acquisitions, which was recently featured in the Journal of Financial Economics, we consider incentive conflicts involving employees, and how they may affect firms in the context of acquisitions. More specifically, we look at the effects of variation in employee protections on shareholder value, the choice of targets, and deal characteristics.  We focus on acquisitions since they are major firm investment decisions with the potential to substantially affect firm value.

READ MORE »

2015 Canadian Hostile Take-Over Bid Study

The following post comes to us from Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP and is based on the executive summary of a Fasken Martineau study by Aaron J. Atkinson and Bradley A. Freelan, partners in the Mergers & Acquisitions practice at Fasken Martineau DuMoulin LLP. The complete publication is available here.

In Canada, there are numerous ways to acquire a public company; however, a take-over bid made directly to shareholders is the only means by which legal control can be acquired without the consent of the target board. Such an unsolicited (or “hostile”) bid is often used to bypass the board and present an offer directly to shareholders after discussions with the target board have failed, thereby putting the target company “in play”.

READ MORE »

The HSR Act’s Investment-Only Exemption for Targets and Activist Investors

The following post comes to us from Barry A. Nigro Jr., partner in the Antitrust and Competition and Corporate Practices and chair of the Antitrust Department at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and is based on a Fried Frank publication by Mr. Nigro, Philip Richter, Nathaniel L. Asker, and Alyson L. Redman.

Activist shareholder campaigns continue to grow in number and prominence. One of the largest private equity deals of 2014—the $8.7 billion buy-out of PetSmart Inc.—came about following comments by a significant shareholder. A merger of the two leading office superstores, Staples and Office Depot, and the breakup of DuPont Co., each are being promoted by activist investors. These are but three examples of recent activist campaigns; with close to $200 billion in available funds, others are sure to follow. [1] The continued rise of shareholder activism serves as a useful reminder that targets and investors should be mindful of the scope of the investment-only exemption under the Hart-Scott-Rodino Act. Whether and when particular conduct may disqualify a shareholder from the passive investment exemption is a highly fact-specific inquiry and has been the subject of several enforcement actions in recent years.

READ MORE »

The Allergan Aftermath

The following post comes to us from Philip Richter, partner and co-head of the Mergers and Acquisitions Practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and is based on a Fried Frank publication by Mr. Richter, John E. Sorkin, David N. Shine, and Gail Weinstein.

Valeant’s failed acquisition bid for Allergan has underscored longstanding M&A principles—even as the involvement of shareholder activists in the M&A arena has introduced new technologies, opportunities, and challenges. In the aftermath of the Allergan saga, it is clear that Pershing Square was richly rewarded for having crafted a novel bidder-activist collaboration model. The outcome for Valeant, however, notwithstanding the creative collaboration, is that its bid ultimately failed, and in the most conventional of ways (losing to a superior offer from an alternative bidder).

READ MORE »

Delaware Legislature Clarifies Section 251(h) Second-Step Merger Provisions

The following post comes to us from Abigail Pickering Bomba, partner in the corporate practice at Fried, Frank, Harris, Shriver & Jacobson LLP, and is based on a Fried Frank publication by Ms.Bomba, David N. Shine, John E. Sorkin, and Gail Weinstein. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

The following amendments to Delaware General Corporation Law (“DGCL”) Section 251(h) have been passed by the Delaware legislature, clarifying a number of issues that have arisen since adoption of the law last year. If signed by the Governor (as is expected), the amendments will apply to merger agreements entered into on or after August 1, 2014. Under Section 251(h), a merger agreement can include a provision that eliminates the need for a target stockholder vote for a merger after a tender or exchange offer if, among other conditions, the acquiror then owns at least the number of shares that would be sufficient to approve the merger under the DGCL and the target’s charter. The amendments provide for the following:

READ MORE »

Navigating Today’s Shareholder Activism Landscape

The following post comes to us from Richard J. Grossman, partner concentrating in corporate governance matters and mergers and acquisitions, at Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom LLP, and is based on a Skadden alert by Mr. Grossman and Stephen F. Arcano.

Shareholder activism is the corporate topic du jour, be it in boardrooms, the media or Washington, D.C. While corporate boards and management need to understand the current environment and how we got here, their top priority is to develop comprehensive strategies for navigating the activism landscape. As activists have become more sophisticated, and activism more mainstream, approaches to dealing with activists are, by necessity, evolving.

READ MORE »

Hushmail: Are Activist Hedge Funds Breaking Bad?

Mark D. Gerstein is a partner in the Chicago office of Latham & Watkins LLP and Global Chair of that firm’s Mergers and Acquisitions Group. This post is based on a Latham & Watkins M&A Commentary by Mr. Gerstein, Bradley C. Faris, Timothy P. FitzSimons, and John M. Newell. This post is part of the Delaware law series, which is cosponsored by the Forum and Corporation Service Company; links to other posts in the series are available here.

Increasingly, some activist hedge funds are looking to sell their stock positions back to target companies. How should the board respond to hushmail?

The Rise and Fall of Greenmail

During the heyday of takeovers in the 1980s, so-called corporate raiders would often amass a sizable stock position in a target company, and then threaten or commence a hostile offer for the company. In some cases, the bidder would then approach the target and offer to drop the hostile bid if the target bought back its stock at a significant premium to current market prices. Since target companies had fewer available takeover defenses at that time to fend off opportunistic hostile offers and other abusive takeover transactions, the company might agree to repurchase the shares in order to entice the bidder to withdraw. This practice was referred to as “greenmail,” and some corporate raiders found greenmail easier, and more profitable, than the hostile takeover itself.

READ MORE »